Any Mustang enthusiast is likely to have both fond and not so fond memories of previous generation Mustangs when a four-cylinder engine option was available. That anemic four-cylinder that hid under the hood of so many Fox body Mustangs over the years was enough to make enthusiasts cry.

However, Ford has made no apologies for moving the “global” 2015 Mustang to a new platform that will offer more efficient engines across the board -- the all-new Mustang will also ditch the live rear axle in favor of an independent rear suspension. We know that the muscular 5.0-liter V8 engine will soldier on in the United States. In addition, rumors continue to swirl that there will be an EcoBoost V-6 engine option available.

2013 Mustang GT

Word has now surfaced that while Europeans will be able to purchase the 2015 Ford Mustang with a turbocharged 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine. While Edmunds doesn't specify this fact, on a recent episode of the hit UK television show Top Gear the hosts said that only the four-cylinder engine would be available for European buyers.

Edmunds reports that the four-cylinder that will be under the hood of the Mustang in Europe will be based on the 2.0-liter engine featured in the 2013 Focus ST. In the Focus ST, the turbocharged four-cylinder produced 252 hp. In the Mustang, the 2.3-liter engine will produce around 300 hp according to company insiders.

Ford has remained quiet on pricing for the Mustang in Europe and the vehicle is expected to be a low-volume specialty car within Europe.

quote: Edmunds reports that the four-cylinder that will be under the hood of the Mustang

I can't see why they don't use one of the existing line up of American V8 engines. Since the car comes with a V8 in America, then space is obviously not the reason for a 4 cylinder engine.I would have thought that to get the same power from a 2.3 litre engine as larger capacity V8, then you'd have had to put more stress on the engine, which equates to higher maintenance costs and a shorter life expectancy.It seems an unnecessary waste of money to develop a turbo charged 300 HP engine when they probably have a stock pile of V8s that can do the job.I think the first thing a new owner would want to do with this car is rip out the 4 cylinder engine and put in an after market V8.

Think about it, really think. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Ford's idea to do this exclusively. There's probably some European mandate or fine or tax, what-have-you, that made this the better option.

Also Europeans have this weird stigma against "yank V8's", even though a pretty large percentage of their own vehicles have V8 or larger engines. Mercedes, BMW, Range Rover etc etc. When you listen to a typical European speak about the American auto industry, you get the impression they believe we're all still driving around in "gas guzzlers" from the 1970's.

quote: There's probably some European mandate or fine or tax, what-have-you

You would be correct. In some European countries (Austria at least, probably more) the registration fees for your car are based partly on engine displacement. The larger the engine the larger the registration fee.

In other areas of Europe I understand that registration fees are based on Horsepower, so the higher the horsepower the higher the fee.

In terms of displacement fee, that has lead to advancement of engine technology, fees based on the horsepower (Finland) is just pure social engineering.

quote: In terms of displacement fee, that has lead to advancement of engine technology, fees based on the horsepower (Finland) is just pure social engineering.

I disagree with both, the correct way to achieve the supposed goals of these (encouraging efficiency) is to base the fees on some metric involving the emissions and possibly fuel consumption. Displacement and horsepower are only loosely related to either of these.

For example, if I swap a LS1 in to a FD RX7 I've just more than quadrupled the displacement and gained 25-50 HP, but I've nearly doubled the mileage and significantly cut the emissions. Yet in these countries I'd be paying more for having done the right thing by their supposed goals.

As I've argued here many times, displacement is practically meaningless on its own. In the context of passenger vehicles it's hard to even ballpark any of the factors that actually matter (power output, overall size, weight, and efficiency) from displacement. You can have 8.1L engines from the early emissions era putting out under 200HP or 1.3L engines exceeding 500HP. A DOHC 4.6L V8 from a early '00s Mustang absolutely dwarfs a 5.0L V8 from a early '90s or prior Mustang. The aformentioned LS1 barely affects the weight of said RX7 even though it's a 5.7L lump replacing a 1.3L turbo.

Within the same engine family (say GM GenIII for an example with many varieties of the same basic block) it does roughly correlate with power output, but that's about the only sort of situation where displacement is actually useful for comparison between two engines.

quote: the correct way to achieve the supposed goals of these (encouraging efficiency) is to base the fees on some metric involving the emissions...

We were not talking about emissions, just displacement and horsepower, but it was nice of you to bring up the "Green" side of things.

Logic dictates (to a certain point) that smaller engine displacements use less fuel so, less emissions. The move of Ferrari to use a hybrid system in it's new car is a move that I think will start a top-down use of such systems. As more and more makers move to this to supplement horsepower lost due to "Green" initiatives I think it will become common place to see this. Of course this will not satisfy either the car enthusiast or the people who want us to live in the stone ages...

Oh, I'm sure you're not, but in almost every car article on here, it's full of people discussing their V8-this and V8-that. It's quite a far cry from most Europeans. And yes, we get taxed to hell and back based on emissions, fuel is extremely pricey, and car insurance is based generally on how much horsepower you have under the bonnet, so having a large engined car is more of a luxury here (unless you have somebody else forking out for it).

My view of "Yank V8s" is that a lot of them appear to be very much lacking in power, presumably to use less fuel. Would this be an accurate assessment? Are a lot of V8s simply underpowered?

However you still have the mechanical friction of 4 more cylinders dragging down fuel econ. Plus the weight of the engine. You burn more fuel at idle just to keep the engine turning over, burn more to move it off the line, burn more to roll it around place to place.

The weight is even more significant when Euro drivers tend to put more emphasis on handing. The big heavy lump of a V8 really screws handling when compared to a lighter 4 or 6.

Some of that weight vs handling problem can be solved by moving the engine farther back to achieve better balance. If you look at the old AC Cobra in which Carol Shelby place a huge big block 427 cid V8, that car had awesome handling because he achieved nearly 50/50 front rear weight distribution.

Also all aluminum V8s are not so heavy when used in a car the size of a Mustang. I had a 99 Trans Am with the almunium LS6 and it was balanced and handled pretty well too.

quote: However you still have the mechanical friction of 4 more cylinders dragging down fuel econ.

Very correct. Even displacement on demand will require a bit of energy from friction. A V8 or V12 can never be as efficient as a 4 or 6 cyl engine. There will be extra pumping work and rotational inertia to deal with.

quote: Plus the weight of the engine......The weight is even more significant when Euro drivers tend to put more emphasis on handing. The big heavy lump of a V8 really screws handling when compared to a lighter 4 or 6.

Absolutely incorrect. The weight of a typical small block engine is less than most high power 4 cyl turbo designs. You have to consider the weight of the turbos and plumbing as well, not to mention that they are overly complicated.

V8s have their place for performance cars, and then complaining that a performance car doesn't get the same mileage as a Prius is ridiculous. Simply put, most V6 or I6 will never be able to get the performance that a typical V8 will.

But when a similar hp V8 gets comparable fuel economy to a turbo 4cyl, that becomes a moot point.

I've yet to see ANY comparable engine get significantly better fuel economy over a decent small block V8, such as the Chevy LS3.

Still insurance and engine displacement tax are drivers. I get that. But the notion that V8s drink more is bunk. Now that's always assuming comparing similar hp engines. V8s certainly use more than 100hp economy engines.

You can't possibly suggest that your 252hp engine is anywhere comparable to a 436hp one, can you?

The comment that 4cyl turbos get better mileage than recent Corvettes is a big, "Well duh?" moment. Now go show me a 4cyl turbo car that gets close to 400hp AND delivers better fuel economy. I won't really be waiting as I know you won't find one.

Two things - 1) European engines (much like Europeans) - typically ARE more sophistcated (complicated) than their American counterparts. And American V8s are regarded as simple, and cheap, and not very well built or engines of quality.

2) Americans ARE still driving around gas guzzlers. Considering the options that are available to pretty much EVERY OTHER MARKET OTHER THAN AMERICA (even from American manufacturers) - they're all farrr more efficient elsewhere. Ask a North American salesperson or marketing or exec - they say that that's cuz there's no demand for it here in North America.

OK, but...The way I uderstand it is that European diesel engines can't be sold here because of tighter US emmision standards. So if they have a ton more diesels over there and their emmitting more from their engines I'm not getting it.

The diesel in the US is currently dirtier than in Europe so to compensate the same engine has to be fitted with more emission control systems, resulting in lower fuel economy. This becomes less desirable than the gas counterpart from the both the manufacturer's and buyer's point of view (higher cost, lower fuel economy) than in Europe.

It's the reverse of the low sulfur diesel of decades ago. The burden needs to be shifted back onto the refineries and off the automotive manufacturers again (which will drive up the cost of diesel slightly). It will happen, but will take time, and also yes, emission standards are measured against different metrics too.

That is actually not true since about 2008. The max sulpher content (the main cause of pollutants in diesel) in US diesel is currently at 15ppm, in the EU, it is 50ppm. To be fair, it is mandated that there is 10ppm sulpher or lower diesel fuel avaliable in the EU, but their max allowable is higher.

As for the emmissions laws, again, the US is far stricter than the EU. NOx limits in the US are 0.05g per mile, in the EU they are 0.40g per mile, or 8x higher than the US regulations.

Up until fairly recently, you were correct on all accounts, the US regulations were far more lax than the EU regs, but the US has taken massive steps in curbing emmissions from Diesel engines over the last 5 years.

The very low sulfur in US diesel was one reason that many Euro car companies halted US sales for a few years because there was some kind of problem with them running of diesel with such a low sulfur content. Not sure if it was emissions or engine damage though but it caused the owner at my work to have to wait a year for her new diesel Mercedes a few years ago.

quote: It's a ridiculous registration tax. A 8L engine that actually gets better fuel economy than a 2L engine would also pay significantly more in tax. But that's typical Euro thinking.

Tax here in the UK is based on CO2 emissions, so if your big 8L managed to drink less than a 2L car, I don't see why it'd cost more to tax. Insurance, however, is a totally different kettle of fish.

Taxing based on CO2 emissions can only go so far. An exhaust spits out more than just that particular nasty, especially with respect to diesels. Despite the health risks, diesels are more prevalent over here (in the UK where diesel fuel is actually more expensive than petrol - a rare exception in Europe - diesels are still very popular, with some models rated well over 80mpg (I)) and it's cheaper to tax them as they produce comparatively less CO2 than a similar petrol engine. That's not going to change until either petrol becomes notably cheaper than diesel or diesels get taxed on NOx.

For me the lower the rpm at which an engine achieves maximum torque matters much more than what it's high rpm max hp is. I really hate hearing those little I4s reving up to the limits as people try to take off quickly at the lights. Sound like they are going to fly apart lol. The I6 4.9L in my truck, I rarely get it over 3000rpm, and that is only if I am merging onto the interstate, which I may drive on twice a year.

You don't like racing cars? You don't like a cutting edge tech, supreme quality motor that can operate at high RPM to deliver as much power in as small of a footprint as possible? Without the weight, heat, and retardation of throttle response from FI?

I can't speak for Europe, but in the UK, the type of engine will dramatically alter the insurance for the car, which even for a 1.6L engine is generally a fair chunk of money, it also changes the amount you pay for your road tax, for example my 1.2L car costs £130 a year or so for road tax, a range rover would cost around £900 odd per year. You then have to take into account the petrol. We are currently paying upto £1.45 per litre of fuel. Most people who can afford or jsutify a big engined car either go for the likes of an aston martin, range rover, or something like an M5 or RS5 etc. In the UK it seems that european brands are often favoured over american brands. I have seen countless exotic cars in the UK, but never seen a single mustang, and only 1 corvette to date.

“I believe that Europeans are taxed on engine displacement, so the smaller the better. That's why you see a lot of 2.0-liter and below turbo'd engines.”

In the UK employees using a company car had a tax liability for this perk and that was based on engine size back in the day; not sure these days. It used to be a tax free perk and was then increasingly taxed until it possibly became of marginal if any value.

As for any EU mandate I suspect it will be based on volumes of cars sold. You can’t release a gas guzzling car that sells in the hundreds of thousands and offset that with a very frugal model that sells in the hundreds. They can’t be that stupid, surely?

The heavyer the car, the more the tax. Aside from taxes on the car, fuel is taxed to high heaven. Drive a V8 here and you'll bankrupt yourself in a day.

And there's no point. You get about 2 seconds of acceleration and then you hit a corner. And another corner. And then a stoplight. The only thing that are straight are the highways, but there you either hit traffic or you're limited to ~65 MPH in most countries. And if there's anything the police do check for it's speeding, if you don't get caught by a camera.

The new Mustang weighs about the same as a 3 series. Probably why no one complains about the weight. Both cars still need a diet though. I'd pay an extra $5k for a 300 lb lighter Mustang with the same amount of power, of course. :)

Very true, I didn't get into the weeds on the price, but I'm sure there are better deals than what I found. After I'm done with my morning run, I'm gonna find those last 30lbs. I think I was light on the gestimate with the seats. Also if you have those stupid airbags in the seats those are really fricken heavy!

Compared to an aluminum one? Not much if any. The lightest carbon fiber shafts I've seen is about 15.5lbs, and the lightest aluminum one is 16bs. The CF shaft still uses aluminum parts/joints/flanges. Nice thing about them though is you don't need a safety loop. If they give they just shatter. Wont do any damage to your undercarriage.

Your "higher stress" argument is bollocks. This isn't the 1970's. Manufacturers are eeking 125 hp/liter and even more from normally aspirated cars (2014 Porsche GT3). Modern computer design, and high tech materials and processes have resulted in exceptionally durable and long lasting engines, while also making high specific output.

a 4 cylinder turbo is a significantly better option for most cars, including the mustang, with the following advantages over a v8:

1) easier to work on, primarily because you have more room under the hood, things like tuneups, belt changes, etc are much easier to perform.

2) a 4 cylinder turbo will need less oil, typically 4 bangers only use 4 quarts of oil while v8's use at least 5 quarts.

3) a turbo engine, especially an inter-cooled one, doesn't suffer from the loss of power in extreme conditions such as high altitudes or really hot days. a naturally aspirated engine loses noticeable power in placed like denver or death valley.

4) it will offer better fuel economy thanks in no small part to the lighter weight of the engine; this lighter weight will also make the car better balanced by making it less nose heavy.

lastly, this isn't the first time ford has made a 4 cylinder turbo mustang, back in the '80's they made the mustang SVO, a turbo 4-banger and i never met anyone that drove one and didn't like it, it's just that for some reason car companies seem to think that americans want a v8 in a muscle car.